Re: [PATCH 1/3] Advance fast path pointer for first block only

2007-02-04 Thread David Miller
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:41:16 +0200 > Only advance the SACK fast-path pointer for the first block, the fast-path > assumes that only the first block advances next time so we should not move the > cached skb for the next sack blocks. > > Signed-Off-By: Baruc

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Advance fast path pointer for first block only

2007-01-31 Thread Baruch Even
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070131 22:48]: > From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:13:39 +0200 > > > Only advance the SACK fast-path pointer for the first block, the fast-path > > assumes that only the first block advances next time so we should not move > > th

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Advance fast path pointer for first block only

2007-01-31 Thread David Miller
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:13:39 +0200 > Only advance the SACK fast-path pointer for the first block, the fast-path > assumes that only the first block advances next time so we should not move the > skb for the next sack blocks. > > Signed-Off-By: Baruch Even

[PATCH 1/3] Advance fast path pointer for first block only

2007-01-27 Thread Baruch Even
Only advance the SACK fast-path pointer for the first block, the fast-path assumes that only the first block advances next time so we should not move the skb for the next sack blocks. Signed-Off-By: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- I'm not sure about the fack_count part, this patch changes th